“The U.S. Supreme Court is to hear arguments Tuesday in a closely-watched dispute between Samsung Electronics and Apple on the procedure for calculation of damages for the infringement of design patents,” John Ribeiro reports for IDG News Service.
“Some older Samsung smartphones were found by a jury in 2012 to have infringed three design patents related to the look of the iPhone, including its face and rounded bezel design, and the icon layout on the home screen,” Ribeiro reports. “Samsung is questioning an appeals court’s interpretation that it has to pay as damages all the profits from the sale of infringing products, claiming that the patented designs are only minor features of the product.”
“Apple has submitted to the court that Congress enacted the rule as it recognized that ‘it is the design that sells the article.’ As the profits that can be attributable to design are difficult to arrive at, it is expedient that the infringer’s entire profit on the article should be recoverable, as else none would be recovered, according to the filing,” Ribeiro reports. “The South Korean company is questioning US$399 million in damages out of a total award of $930 million for infringement of both utility and design patents.”
Read more in the full article here.
MacDailyNews Take: Regardless, even if fully enforced, the judgement will be a pittance compared to what was stolen from Apple by Google, Samsung, et al.
The main reason why Samsung et al. were able to sell phones and tablets at all was because they made fake iPhones and fake iPads designed to fool the unwitting in much the same way as how Microsoft et al. profited wildly from upside-down and backwards fake Macs at the end of the 20th century. Google, Samsung, HTC, Xiaomi, et al. are the Microsofts, HPs, Dells, and eMachines of the new century.
Apple’s products came first, then Samsung’s:
Here’s what Google’s Android looked like before and after Apple’s iPhone:
And, here’s what cellphones looked like before and after Apple’s iPhone:
People who buy Android phones and tablets reward thieves.
SEE ALSO:
Apple wins appeal reinstating $119.6 million verdict against patent-infringer Samsung – October 7, 2016
Beleaguered Samsung struggles to put out the fires caused by their exploding phones – October 6, 2016
Dieter Rams, Norman Foster, and 100+ of the world’s top designers side with Apple in Samsung patent case – August 4, 2016
Apple to U.S. Supreme Court: Samsung stole our patents, should end its appeals and finally pay up – August 1, 2016
Obama nominates Lucy Koh for Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco – February 29, 2016
I bet there are a lot of Same-sung executives burning incense in front of their alters this morning, praying for the Supreme Court ruling in their favor, so that money is freed up to cover their Note 7 recall. Let’s see in who’s favor Karma rules.
Let’s hope it is 2 wins out of two today.
Too many Liberals on the court they will be sympathetic to Sumsung’s latest misfortunes and let them slide.
I hope justice is finally served.
“Apple has submitted to the court that Congress enacted the rule as it recognized that ‘it is the design that sells the article.’ As the profits that can be attributable to design are difficult to arrive at, it is expedient that the infringer’s entire profit on the article should be recoverable, as else none would be recovered, according to the filing,”
If this is the opening argument for Apple, the Supreme Court may be inclined to see Apple trying to argue a ‘fashion’ tinted infringement. As a smartphone is utilized in far more ways unlike clothing or jewelry which are primarily decorative, the result may be a denial of further damages if not reversal again of the damages paid. I see the argument for exterior design being further weakened by the abundance of cases that cover up those design elements that are being argued by Apple legal to be major selling points.